Author
Topic: Ambient Music + Copyright (Read 18110 times)

As it seems that this issue needs to be discussed more into detail, i thought to open a new thread.

Especially this statement I find on the edge of respecting other artists work:

Quote from: Immersion

in this sound style... the tolerance is higher then for other music for sure…..

A lot of music i sample based and are using sampling all the time, hip hop for instance, the genre would not exist if it wasn't for sampling or stealing, but as long as you do something artistic with it, or put it in a new context I think it is creative..Also I think it depends on what is being sampled, a melody for instance... but even with that you should not have alone rights on a melody just because some one was first, if some mind can come up with a melody I am sure another mind can come up with the same with time, Also a samples used but put in a different context or music style I think is a way of using it artistically.. I just do not think all this commercial bullshit should interfere with the artistic output, let the music be free,

It clearly suggests that using other artists music is OK as long as you make something "new" out of it, no matter if you have the permission to do so. Such kind of statement made me think of just 2 possible explanations:

1. the author just want to excuse and justify those usage for whatever reason

I did write a long well written post to paul...and I did accidentally remove it..I clearly have no energy to rewrite it now but tomorrow.. I really hate when that Happen so frustrating... I did hit ctrl +a and then I did paste a link and the text was gone... ctrl + z did not work unfortunately.

Well you just selected all For the future maybe learn another key command like ctrl+c

I should also mention that when we are talking about sampling another artists work I am assuming that we are talking about lifting things off of previously released works of art from albums or film. Commercially released loop libraries of course are fair game :-)

I should also clarify that I do understand to a certain point why the hip-hop generation went and sampled famous bits and pieces from old vinyl or famous songs, I get that from a novelty and interest standpoint.

However I don't understand why in the electronic music genre someone would need to lift an atmosphere or a drum groove etc. That seems like laziness, and yet I know it happens.

Logged

"I liken good ambient to good poetry ... enjoyable, often powerful, and usually unpopular" APK

Personally, I baulk at the idea of sampling someone else's work (irregardless of genre), I just don't see the point. However, 'sampling' your own sounds and using them in something like Kontakt (for example), is a creative endeavour I'm all for.

For me, using commercially available loop libraries etc. completely unaltered, is something I also don't see the appeal of (from a purely artistic point of view) either.

To me, it's one thing to sample from a completely different genre or style, and repurpose what you've sampled for a completely different kind of work. I mean, if I take a voice sample from Blade Runner and put it in a trance song, it's not so much about ripping off. It's just sampling... quoting, sort of. This seems like less of a problem to me.

If you're an ambient musician creating drone work, and you take a large section of another ambient artist's drone and make it the basis for your own track, that's entirely different. To me that's just laziness, a terrible, lame shortcut... and much more like stealing or at least dishonesty, even if you credit it. You're using the person's work for something very much like the original work, barely changing it, certainly not repurposing it or creating something very new/different from it.

And yes, loop libraries or commercial sample packs are totally different. Those are sold with the express purpose of being used in other people's work.

Immersion: your "artistic freedom" reminds me of your "set the music free", which is pretty much the same as 'I will download illegally anything that is digital and do what I want with it even though I didn't create it and it is not mine to use.'

Artistic freedom means building on the shoulders of great artists and being inspired by their work and going your own way with what you have discovered with your own skills and your own medium.

Artistic freedom does not mean, to shift the example just a tiny bit, running into a music store and stealing whatever equipment might serve your own ends while shouting "artistic freedom!" It is simply stealing from the store, just as it is stealing from the artist if you just use whatever you want of his or her works without first getting permission or paying for what you are using.

I'm done with people who always want other people's labour for free ... no matter what cliche battle cry they might use.

It's nothing very difficult to understand. It is just being honest with, and respectful to, other artists who created stuff before you.

Labour, in english, simply means work, it means you put time into it. It doesn't mean "work I'd rather not do".

Yes, I run a label. But I run it primarily to release my own music. No reason to assume that all label owners are "in it for the money" (or some similar silly slogan). Besides, to correct yet another generalization of yours, even lawyers can be primarily interested in the truth, not simply in being paid.

And there is no reason why art should only be done for "your personal pleasure". That is just another bias of yours. Many artists, now and through history, worked on art for a living. So for you it may just be a hobby, but for many other people it is definitely a profession.

Music should be a passion not a labour..if you do it for money you could aswell be a prostitute and sell yourself..

If this is your personal opinion, then you are free to make music or art and give it away for free. That does not mean that other people should not be able to charge something for their work. It certainly does not mean they are equivalent to prostitutes for doing so!

Nobody creates music JUST for the money, or JUST for the art with no regard for money. I mean, even people who don't make a penny for their work probably would accept payment if someone made them the right offer. Many of those who argue most vocally against copyright are people who make plenty of money for their work. They just believe they can make money while still letting people share it freely.

The very great majority of the music you listen to, very nearly 100% of it, simply would not exist if there were not a system of artist's rights that allowed the artist to be compensated for their work. Think of all the albums that required a lot of expense to create. Nobody would have paid the bill to create these things, except that a system existed whereby they might recoup their investment and possibly profit.

Would this be a better world if there were no Dark Side of the Moon, or no White Album, or no Exile on Main Street? Seriously?! If you argue that these things would exist without copyright, you have absolutely no credibility.

Labour, in english, simply means work, it means you put time into it. It doesn't mean "work I'd rather not do".

Yes, I run a label. But I run it primarily to release my own music. No reason to assume that all label owners are "in it for the money" (or some similar silly slogan). Besides, to correct yet another generalization of yours, even lawyers can be primarily interested in the truth, not simply in being paid.

And there is no reason why art should only be done for "your personal pleasure". That is just another bias of yours. Many artists, now and through history, worked on art for a living. So for you it may just be a hobby, but for many other people it is definitely a profession.

Music should be a passion not a labour..if you do it for money you could aswell be a prostitute and sell yourself.. but nevermind..You mix up things, of course to be able to surrive on the music is an good bonus but it should not be the driving force and the purpose you release new albums just to bring in some more cash. I think we end it there, you have a more consertive view then me, I am fine with that even though we do not agree.

The worst thing about you Immersion is that you make stupid and totally ignorant statements like "the driving force and the purpose you release new albums just to bring in some more cash". That is one of the most offensive things I have ever heard anyone say against me. But I doubt you can understand that in your self-serving universe.

With all the billions of choices modern synths offer, can't understand why an em/ambient artist would need to sampleand then change someone else's work. Laziness, yes. Stealing, yes.

I vote for artistic freedom!

Niclas,

it seems that artistic freedom works for you in the same way as for "music freedom"

Concerning to your post in the "Best of 2013" and "el culto news" thread, believe me I know very well each legal customer of "Dagaz" because this ltd CD is exclusively released via el culto.

Greetings,Tomas

Maybe I heard it on a internet radio ? I am a high believer in "try before by" Should I buy something just judging on the art work and cool song titles ? I have a very big cd collection I Do not have time to fill my small apartment with cds that do not deserve a long term spot.. I have been burned so many times. Any thing it is the wrong approach to make you get more customers.

Niclas.

internet radio…ahhhh i see...and that of course makes it into the "Best of 2013" list

Immersion, you show up on a forum where many of the members are ambient artists or record label owners, or both. You know most of them believe they should have the right to control their own work, to charge for it if they want, and to assert the right to control how other people use it.

If you want to disregard the rights all creative artists, at least be respectful enough not to rudely announce, "I don't respect your rights. Even if you don't want me to take your music, I will take it if I want to." To do otherwise is just being a jerk.

It's like showing up in a room full of married men and saying, "I dispute your right to protect your wives' bodies, and also dispute the right of your wives to control their own bodies, and I will touch them if I want. You can't stop me, because I disagree with your conservative beliefs."